Creation or Evolution

[Orogeny]

The way God did it? How do you know?

You put science first and then tack God on?

No, Ed. God created everything. Evolution is how He created the diversity of life we have now. See, God is first, how He did it is second.

You write about the way God did it as if the matter was settled. It’s not. Check out the similar threads running on this forum. Most of the time the point is never “this is what God did,” it’s “this is the evidence so you can forget about your Bible mythology.” “The Church is wrong.”

You know Ed, you have a real bad habit of using quotes. You really need to get away from that because you can’t back up your assertions. Do you really mean that most actually say that? If not, as someone who claims that they are in the media and/or a writer, you should know better.

Peace

Tim

 

[Deconi]

No, Ed. God created everything. Evolution is how He created the diversity of life we have now. See, God is first, how He did it is second…
Tim

That is the whole point of these threads. (emboldened) The simple way you’ve phrased that, as though it were FACT!.

I don’t know why (some)intellects on this thread think the Pope has confirmed the theory as valid, when the kids in Italy clearly see that he has not!…in protesting against a Papal visit to their university because he is against it

If your understanding has led you to accept that your ancestry included an animal (that needed to eat it’s ancestry line to survive) that’s fine! But understand that it’s not an established fact, but a ‘good’ theory! “It is more than a hypothesis…” Granted. But it is not fact!

Some of you may think that you are uncles to monkeys or what-have-you, but allow us the freedom to say, NO YOU AIN’T!!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t know why (some)intellects on this thread think the Pope has confirmed the theory as valid,

Mostly, because he wrote this:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

If your understanding has led you to accept that your ancestry included an animal (that needed to eat it’s ancestry line to survive) that’s fine!

You think that’s what evolution is about? No wonder you hate science.

But understand that it’s not an established fact, but a ‘good’ theory! “It is more than a hypothesis…” Granted. But it is not fact!

The technical term is “strawman.”

Some of you may think that you are uncles to monkeys or what-have-you, but allow us the freedom to say, NO YOU AIN’T!!

Haven’t heard that one in a long time. Thanks for the nostalgia.

 

[Orogeny]

That is the whole point of these threads. (emboldened) The simple way you’ve phrased that, as though it were FACT!.

Well, it is a fact. Why wouldn’t I phrase it that way?

I don’t know why (some)intellects on this thread think the Pope has confirmed the theory as valid, when the kids in Italy clearly see that he has not!…in protesting against a Papal visit to their university because he is against it

I don’t need the pope to confirm anything regarding science. A fact is a fact.

If your understanding has led you to accept that your ancestry included an animal (that needed to eat it’s ancestry line to survive) that’s fine! But understand that it’s not an established fact, but a ‘good’ theory! “It is more than a hypothesis…” Granted. But it is not fact!

Evolution is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t change anything.

Some of you may think that you are uncles to monkeys or what-have-you, but allow us the freedom to say, NO YOU AIN’T!!

You are free to say anything you want. I’m not going to call you anything or question your faith or intelligence if you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

You don’t need the Pope to confirm anything about science? Would you mind taking a guess at what has motivated The Barbarian to repeat the Pope’s comment that common descent is virtually certain? I mean, surely, that won’t ever appear in a biology textbook. So why does he keep repeating it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

You don’t need the Pope to confirm anything about science?

Correct.

Would you mind taking a guess at what has motivated The Barbarian to repeat the Pope’s comment that common descent is virtually certain? I mean, surely, that won’t ever appear in a biology textbook. So why does he keep repeating it?

I agree with Barbarian. The Pope has said that common descent is virtually certain. However, I don’t need the Pope to validate science. He is my leader when it comes to faith but I doubt he has much education regarding carbonate diagenesis or optical properties of minerals or other things geologists study. But even if he had, his statements about faith carry the backing of the Holy Spirit. His statements about science don’t.

Surely you understand why he keeps repeating it. It is because you keep referring to the document that statement comes from in an unsuccessful attempt to argue your position that the Church rejects evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your reply. I’m not repeating the following to be irritating but illustrative: “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” The Pope went on to mention flaws in the theory and how science too narrowly restricts our view. And that there are other areas of reason that we still need.

What I have been saying is wrong is textbook evolution, because, from the Catholic perspective, any evolution that occurred was infallibly guided by God. In other words, as Human Persons Created in the Image of God tells us, without divine providence, the purely textbook version of evolution simply cannot exist.

Too many people, including a few I know, look at the textbook version as the complete answer. No God, just random mutation and natural selection in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have man in mind. Now, before anyone mentions the keep your religion out of my public school line, I would like to remind everyone reading this that this is a Catholic forum and a valid concern for Catholics. I spoke with a young man who really believes we are all just animals. Really. We can talk and build stuff, but that’s about the only difference.

As Ernst Mayr pointed out, this view has changed what he called the zeitgeist of modern man. He goes on further to say that the supernatural is excluded from evolution, though he does give a nod to believing in God, which, I think was just his way of kowtowing to any believers who were hearing his speech.

It concerns me that the type of evolution being promoted here is the purely textbook variety and not the type that was infallibly guided by God. God, of course, being increasingly excluded from within earshot of any public place.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your reply. I’m not repeating the following to be irritating but illustrative: “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” The Pope went on to mention flaws in the theory and how science too narrowly restricts our view. And that there are other areas of reason that we still need.

What I have been saying is wrong is textbook evolution, because, from the Catholic perspective, any evolution that occurred was infallibly guided by God. In other words, as Human Persons Created in the Image of God tells us, without divine providence, the purely textbook version of evolution simply cannot exist.

Too many people, including a few I know, look at the textbook version as the complete answer. No God, just random mutation and natural selection in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have man in mind. Now, before anyone mentions the keep your religion out of my public school line, I would like to remind everyone reading this that this is a Catholic forum and a valid concern for Catholics. I spoke with a young man who really believes we are all just animals. Really. We can talk and build stuff, but that’s about the only difference.

As Ernst Mayr pointed out, this view has changed what he called the zeitgeist of modern man. He goes on further to say that the supernatural is excluded from evolution, though he does give a nod to believing in God, which, I think was just his way of kowtowing to any believers who were hearing his speech.

It concerns me that the type of evolution being promoted here is the purely textbook variety and not the type that was infallibly guided by God. God, of course, being increasingly excluded from within earshot of any public place.

Peace,
Ed

OK. You need to understand that science is disinterested in God. That doesn’t mean science rejects God. It means science is interested in other things.

Let religion be interested in God and let science be interested in the natural world. It’s pretty comfortable that way.

 

[edwest2]

I suggest you listen to an interview with scientist PZ Myers on youtube. He makes it very clear that he is an atheist and that science has a corrosive influence on religious belief. He goes on to say how Ken Miller, a Christian, is the front man for the NAS and the AAAS. This interview is followed by some comments. One of which I found particularly instructive:

“I don’t think science and religion can coexist & do not favor science making any accomodations to religion.”

Now PZ Myers enjoys promoting evolution and atheism. I hope you can see the connection.

I believe science and religion can coexist, but it is clear from this, and my readings at various other internet forums that revolve around atheisn, secular humanism and Darwinism, the goal is to kick the "cretards’ out of social and political life.

I don’t think not believing in God makes you a bad person, but, right now, there is a conflict going on that is being fueled by individuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that goes beyond simply presenting science to people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nullasalus]

I suggest you listen to an interview with scientist PZ Myers on youtube. He makes it very clear that he is an atheist and that science has a corrosive influence on religious belief.

Myers is prone to ranting, raving, and looking at everything from the worst perspective for those he disagrees with. His insistence that science promotes atheism is more the stuff of PR and wish fulfillment than something to take seriously. (Though the abuse of science in thrall to his worldview IS something to take seriously.)

He goes on to say how Ken Miller, a Christian, is the front man for the NAS and the AAAS.

I have vascillating views on Ken Miller. Based on what I’ve seen him argue recently, I respect him more than I have in the past. Again, do you really want to swallow the opinion of a guy like Myers, or even cite it as evidence?

Now PZ Myers enjoys promoting evolution and atheism. I hope you can see the connection.

Myers enjoys promoting an atheistic, materialist philosophy as science, and evolution is typically where that comes to a boil. When atheists tell you ‘This science or given fact is proof of atheism’, I warn against taking them at their word. There’s a lot of political and social gamesmanship going on in these disputes.

I believe science and religion can coexist, but it is clear from this, and my readings at various other internet forums that revolve around atheisn, secular humanism and Darwinism, the goal is to kick the "cretards’ out of social and political life.

Absolutely, for some of them that is. It’s not about science being incompatible with theism. It’s about arguing against theism under the guise of science and other such false fronts.

I say this as a theistic evolutionist (Though frankly, I have strong sympathies with ID as a philosophical project, and have seen some good thought, not hard science, come out of the camp.)

I don’t think not believing in God makes you a bad person, but, right now, there is a conflict going on that is being fueled by individuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that goes beyond simply presenting science to people.

Absolutely.

 

[Deconi]

Well, it is a fact. Why wouldn’t I phrase it that way?I don’t need the pope to confirm anything regarding science. A fact is a fact.Evolution is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn’t change anything.You are free to say anything you want. I’m not going to call you anything or question your faith or intelligence if you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Peace

Tim

Tim, we all came through relatively the same school system. At some point and to varying degrees, we all agreed with evolution. Until 5years ago, I sang the same song and physically wanted to strangle and throttle some of the “anti” evolution brigade, be they Christian or not!

There is evolution! The diverseness of humans on this planet from just two people cannot be, unless the prototypes were able to multiply and adapt to whatever environment the ‘products’ found themselves in.

Did a pair of dogs give rise to all the varieties we now have?

Did ferns evolve to the fauna we have today?

Did reptiles become mammals, become animals onto sapiens…etc…etc…etc. Or a rearrangement of the lineage, or some other yet to be discovered arrangement?
(rhetoricals)

Ed is right!! The search for the answers to the above queries is valid, but has resulted in true scientific research being mixed with wild extrapostulations that ignore yawing abysses which have no evidence to support the tenent. “Theories” are then drafted to fill the abysses and more theories to support the theories. In the broad spectrum of science, it is difficult to sift fact from postulations.

There is an account of how all this came to be.

Is it true? Actually, on its own, “NO!” We can comfortably deny that Moses actually brought anything down that mountain from God! Who’s God anyway? Moses could have been doing some “white lines” up there and came up with the Pentateuch books, which included Genesis. We can say to this day that the Jews are delusional with their account of creation. It is no more valid than the Bhudist account, or Hindus account…

Until that Long Haired Jew came along and validated Moses’ account! Without That Jew, there is no tangible evidence between Moses and God! Sure, there are arguments about the the Christ not being a real person! But that argument can be subjected to test and another thread.

The point is, God walked this earth and validated the account of Moses. That being the case, how can science be separate from religion? How can the study of the things He made, be not a question of The Divine?

ENTER the “Dawkins” of this world; ‘Actually, there is no Creator?’ Citing poor Charlie’s efforts of his own research into our ‘origins’ as the base, we have evolution theory “trumping” the Biblical account.
**
Thankfully, people like yourself and other scientists who KNOW BETTER all went public to decry the “Dawkins” of this world and REMIND them that science does NOT say that!! **

…you did, didn’t you?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ed is right!! The search for the answers to the above queries is valid, but has resulted in true scientific research being mixed with wild extrapostulations that ignore yawing abysses which have no evidence to support the tenent.

Sounds interesting. Tell us about those, and which scientists have done these things.

“Theories” are then drafted to fill the abysses and more theories to support the theories. In the broad spectrum of science, it is difficult to sift fact from postulations.

It appears you don’t know what “theory” means. Might be a good idea to look up the scientific meaning of theory, before you went on.

 

[Orogeny]

Thank you for your reply. I’m not repeating the following to be irritating but illustrative: “Evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” The Pope went on to mention flaws in the theory and how science too narrowly restricts our view. And that there are other areas of reason that we still need.

He is right that science is not the only answer. But what you are implying is that the Pope has claimed that evolution is not fact. He has not and the quote you gave doesn’t say that. It has been pointed out to you over and over and over that a) no scientific theory is ever “proven” and b) that evolution is both fact and theory and the Pope was discussing the theory. That is why Barbarian has posted what he has - the part of the paper that you keep ignoring is the part where the Pope acknowledges that evolution is a fact.

What I have been saying is wrong is textbook evolution, because, from the Catholic perspective, any evolution that occurred was infallibly guided by God. In other words, as Human Persons Created in the Image of God tells us, without divine providence, the purely textbook version of evolution simply cannot exist.

And you are wrong. Science textbooks should not teach that God is part of science. You and I and the Pope will agree that God is the reason for all creation, but that is based on our faith, not on the scientific method.

Too any people, including a few I know, look at the textbook version as the complete answer. No God, just random mutation and natural selection in a cold, uncaring universe that did not have man in mind. Now, before anyone mentions the keep your religion out of my public school line, I would like to remind everyone reading this that this is a Catholic forum and a valid concern for Catholics. I spoke with a young man who really believes we are all just animals. Really. We can talk and build stuff, but that’s about the only difference.

Then teach them otherwise, but don’t try doing it by ignoring the science. That is a losing proposition.

It concerns me that the type of evolution being promoted here is the purely textbook variety and not the type that was infallibly guided by God. God, of course, being increasingly excluded from within earshot of any public place.

What concerns me is that you would exclude science from the educational system if it doesn’t teach about God as well, yet you don’t require the same for other subjects like mathematics.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, we all came through relatively the same school system. At some point and to varying degrees, we all agreed with evolution. Until 5years ago, I sang the same song and physically wanted to strangle and throttle some of the “anti” evolution brigade, be they Christian or not!

You didn’t come through the same school system I did if that is what you wanted to do with those that don’t agree with science.

Ed is right!! The search for the answers to the above queries is valid, but has resulted in true scientific research being mixed with wild extrapostulations that ignore yawing abysses which have no evidence to support the tenent. “Theories” are then drafted to fill the abysses and more theories to support the theories. In the broad spectrum of science, it is difficult to sift fact from postulations.

One more piece of evidence that you didn’t come through the same educational system I did. I know what theory means in science and you don’t.

Is it true? Actually, on its own, “NO!” We can comfortably deny that Moses actually brought anything down that mountain from God! Who’s God anyway? Moses could have been doing some “white lines” up there and came up with the Pentateuch books, which included Genesis. We can say to this day that the Jews are delusional with their account of creation. It is no more valid than the Bhudist account, or Hindus account…

Until that Long Haired Jew came along and validated Moses’ account! Without That Jew, there is no tangible evidence between Moses and God! Sure, there are arguments about the the Christ not being a real person! But that argument can be subjected to test and another thread.

You have a bone to pick with someone, but it isn’t me. I don’t know what brought that rant on, but you need to stop and take a breath here. I have never made any of the claims you posted, nor would I ever.

The point is, God walked this earth and validated the account of Moses. That being the case, how can science be separate from religion? How can the study of the things He made, be not a question of The Divine?

Is God bound to the laws of nature? Can God not step outside of those laws and perform what we mortals call miracles? Why are they miraculous? Think about it.

ENTER the “Dawkins” of this world; ‘Actually, there is no Creator?’ Citing poor Charlie’s efforts of his own research into our ‘origins’ as the base, we have evolution theory “trumping” the Biblical account.

**Thankfully, people like yourself and other scientists who KNOW BETTER all went public to decry the “Dawkins” of this world and REMIND them that science does NOT say that!! **

…you did, didn’t you?

Good try. I have argued with many people who insists that science either proves or disproves the existence of God. Have I done it publically? No, I haven’t written a letter to the editor or anything like that. What does that mean about me to you?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

He is right that science is not the only answer. But what you are implying is that the Pope has claimed that evolution is not fact. He has not and the quote you gave doesn’t say that. It has been pointed out to you over and over and over that a) no scientific theory is ever “proven” and b) that evolution is both fact and theory and the Pope was discussing the theory. That is why Barbarian has posted what he has - the part of the paper that you keep ignoring is the part where the Pope acknowledges that evolution is a fact.And you are wrong. Science textbooks should not teach that God is part of science. You and I and the Pope will agree that God is the reason for all creation, but that is based on our faith, not on the scientific method.Then teach them otherwise, but don’t try doing it by ignoring the science. That is a losing proposition.What concerns me is that you would exclude science from the educational system if it doesn’t teach about God as well, yet you don’t require the same for other subjects like mathematics.

Peace

Tim

Why would excluding “science” from the educational system concern you? What would happen?

I have just spent the better part of an hour listening to Catholic parents talking about how they home school their kids. You know why? They want God to be part of their education. Some object to the atheist, secular and even pagan derived instruction some kids get at some public schools.

Mathemics teaches no one where they came from or who they really are.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Myers is prone to ranting, raving, and looking at everything from the worst perspective for those he disagrees with. His insistence that science promotes atheism is more the stuff of PR and wish fulfillment than something to take seriously. (Though the abuse of science in thrall to his worldview IS something to take seriously.)

I have vascillating views on Ken Miller. Based on what I’ve seen him argue recently, I respect him more than I have in the past. Again, do you really want to swallow the opinion of a guy like Myers, or even cite it as evidence?

Myers enjoys promoting an atheistic, materialist philosophy as science, and evolution is typically where that comes to a boil. When atheists tell you ‘This science or given fact is proof of atheism’, I warn against taking them at their word. There’s a lot of political and social gamesmanship going on in these disputes.

Absolutely, for some of them that is. It’s not about science being incompatible with theism. It’s about arguing against theism under the guise of science and other such false fronts.

I say this as a theistic evolutionist (Though frankly, I have strong sympathies with ID as a philosophical project, and have seen some good thought, not hard science, come out of the camp.)

Absolutely.

Thank you for your reply. I don’t want to swallow anything from Mr. Myers per se, but when he creates spectacles like putting a nail through a eucharistic host and throwing it in the trash, I have to consider him. Then there was the interview with Mr. Myers and Ken Miller where they spend some time agreeing with each other. I was always taught that one could tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. I have also spent some time on the secular humanism forum where scientist Sam Harris rants in similar fashion and denounces the “alien hiss” of religion and all of his fellow scientists who might bring religious thinking into their scientific discussions. Then there is Richard Dawkins who has created a foundation which, among its goals, is getting a book out that tells parents how to raise their children without God. And curiously, someone here made the odd claim that Mr. Dawkins somehow acknowledges God! It appears the title of his book The God Delusion was not explicit enough.

A study by Nature magazine shows most scientists do not believe in God. And even among some who do, going to Church has become only a social event. Even Richard Dawkins claims that he puts up a Christmas tree in such a way that it would even satisfy an atheist (?).

God bless,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Why would excluding “science” from the educational system concern you? What would happen?

I have just spent the better part of an hour listening to Catholic parents talking about how they home school their kids. You know why? They want God to be part of their education. Some object to the atheist, secular and even pagan derived instruction some kids get at some public schools.

Mathemics teaches no one where they came from or who they really are.

Peace,
Ed

Kids who are educated with a science curriculum that leans toward creation science frequently can’t pass the science portion of entrance exam for college. They need remediation because their science knowledge is not up to speed with the rest of the kids.

 

[Namesake]

Thank you for your reply. I don’t want to swallow anything from Mr. Myers per se, but when he creates spectacles like putting a nail through a eucharistic host and throwing it in the trash, I have to consider him. Then there was the interview with Mr. Myers and Ken Miller where they spend some time agreeing with each other. I was always taught that one could tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. I have also spent some time on the secular humanism forum where scientist Sam Harris rants in similar fashion and denounces the “alien hiss” of religion and all of his fellow scientists who might bring religious thinking into their scientific discussions. Then there is Richard Dawkins who has created a foundation which, among its goals, is getting a book out that tells parents how to raise their children without God. And curiously, someone here made the odd claim that Mr. Dawkins somehow acknowledges God! It appears the title of his book The God Delusion was not explicit enough.

A study by Nature magazine shows most scientists do not believe in God. And even among some who do, going to Church has become only a social event. Even Richard Dawkins claims that he puts up a Christmas tree in such a way that it would even satisfy an atheist (?).

God bless,
Ed

Richard Dawkins also says that he does not completely rule out the existence of God. And Daniel Dennet says that church is a place of intense beauty and inspiration for him.

 

[edwest2]

And this means what, exactly? Mr. Dennet appreciates architecture? Mr. Dawkins is quite clear about his denial of God. On television, I heard the following: “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” I think that was quite clear. His adding a Christmas tree to the Winter Break/Holiday/Feast or whatever is a purely secular and socio-tradition based gesture on his part. It no longer bears any relationship to anything remotely Christian, except perhaps, in some vague, historical way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Kids who are educated with a science curriculum that leans toward creation science frequently can’t pass the science portion of entrance exam for college. They need remediation because their science knowledge is not up to speed with the rest of the kids.

“science knowledge”? What kind of knowledge is that? I successfully went through a course of instruction in electronics and the word evolution was never mentioned in my studies. The same was true in my chemistry studies.

And what is the value of this science knowledge? It is a fact that many cannot read at an appropriate level much less write at an appropriate level by the time they reach college, and your concern is scientific knowledge?

Peace,
Ed